(from the article)
> Nokia says that Symbian is no longer open source, just "open for
> business." The definition of "open" in the mobile space is apparently
> completely different than it is everywhere else in the software industry.
Apologies for flogging a dead horse, but this illustrates nicely the
fallacy of saying that 'open' is less ambiguous than 'free'. By moving
the dialogue away from rights, it doesn't encompass the central feature of
FOSS, that not only is source code available, but it's legal to use it
or change it as you see fit (pretty much).
The term 'open' has been used a lot in the computer industry for a very
long time (long before the term 'open source' was born), and has always
been vague and meant vastly diverse things. Two Bits has a nice chapter
on this: http://twobits.net/discuss/chapter5